Quote:
Originally Posted by jase
Awesome result Bert. A testimony for sticking it out with HDR. I feel the stars overwhelm the scene which do distract from some of the nebulous features (personal preference). Perhaps the can be shrunk to strike a balance. Well done.
...so you going to trade in your L series glass for an FSQ?
|
I will never sell my 300mm F2.8L Jase as it is superb for terrestial photography. It's resolution is as good as an FSQ with focal reducer although the field being far wider suffers from attenuation due to vignetting. It focuses silently and extremely quickly. In fact in camera burst mode it will keep up with an approaching/receding racing car or bird in flight. It resolves a spider web from thirty feet away in diffuse light. For really fast stuff it has a preset memory of focus position that you can lock in.
The latest version of Hiro's Carina image data deals somewhat with the stars. Sixteen (fourteen in reality) bit data would be far better.
I would like to get an FSQ but I barely get enough clear nights for the existing setup and targets.
I am seriously now thinking of collecting data remotely to fully test out my HDR methods with 16 bit data, an FSQ and a dark sky site.
The last thirty years of my working life was spent collecting xray data to elucidate the structure of biological macromolecules. We had exactly the same challenges signal to noise ratio and dynamic range. Even at a synchrotron with huge brilliance, signal to noise was still the most important parameter. We argued for years with the people at the Synchrotron in Chicago about beam configuration. They finally did what I suggested and miraculously the signal to noise was far better. Of course then it was their idea!
The Protein Beam Line at the Australian Synchrotron was designed by me/us and performs far better than even beam lines at 'bigger' synchrotrons.
I saw a niche where I could possibly contribute to astrophotography with my experience. It has been far more difficult than I first imagined. The trick was to fully understand all the variables. This is very difficult if you have any ignorance of even one variable.
If we can see further, it is because we all stand on the shoulders of people who were at it before us. I believe that is why we should give our ideas back for free.
Bert
but I don't like it at all, I reckon I hve seen so much better from you, But that is only MHO. 
A fantastic piece of work from all concerned.
